Title
PLN240181 - FORSBERG NANCY LEE & CELESTE LORENZ TRS
Public hearing to consider a Fee Waiver Request to waive permit fees associated with HCD-Planning File No PLN240181.
Project Location: 554 Maher Road, Royal Oaks.
Proposed CEQA Action: Find that consideration of a fee waiver is not a “Project” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378 and Public Resources Code section 21065.
Body
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to:
1) Find that consideration of a fee waiver is not a “Project” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378 and Public Resources Code section 21065
2) Deny the Fee Waiver Request to waive permit fees associated with HCD-Planning File No PLN240181.
The attached draft resolution includes findings and evidence for consideration (Exhibit A).
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Agent: Sheryl Fox with the office of Anthony Lombardo and Associates
Property Owner: Nancy Forsberg
APN: 127-401-006-000
Parcel Size: 7.8 acres or 333,768 square feet
Zoning: Low Density Residential, Building Site 7 overlay within the Coastal Zone, or “LDR/B-7(CZ)”
Plan Area: North County LCP
Flagged and Staked: N/A
Project Planner: McKenna Bowling, Associate Planner
bowlingmr@countyofmonterey.gov, (831) 755-5298
SUMMARY:
The project site is located at 554 Maher Road, Royal Oaks, within the North County Land Use Plan. HCD-Planning File No. PLN240181 has been proposed to partially abate an existing code enforcement case (21CE00071), through legalizing after-the-fact works consisting of: conversion of a 1,369 square foot barn into a residence, construction of a 528 square foot bedroom addition and 278 square foot covered porch, construction of 566 square foot garage, conversion of an existing garage to a 425 square foot guesthouse and unpermitted development on slopes in excess of 25 percent. According to the adopted fee schedule, permit fees to process the after-the-fact project should be $28,604.00. . On November 17, 2025, the Applicant/Owner requested that the HCD-Director waived these fees in their entirety due to financial constraints and because the property’s violations occurred prior to the Property Owner purchasing the property. On December 15, 2025, the HCD-Director denied the fee waiver request, finding that the request did not meet Land Use Permit Fee Waiver Policy G-260’s criteria (e.g. fixed, very-low income, etc.). The Planning Commission is the appropriate authority to consider fee waiver requests that do not meet the Board’s Land Use Permit Fee Waiver Policy, such as this application.
DISCUSSION:
Code Enforcement:
Code Enforcement Case No. 21CE00071 was opened on March 15, 2021 and a Notice of Violation was concurrently sent to Nancy Forsberg, the Property Owner at that time. The violations included an addition and conversion of an existing barn into a single-family dwelling, construction of a detached garage, grading on slopes greater than 25 percent without permits, clearing of vegetation and Eucalyptus trees which has created accelerated erosion issues, and an occupied recreation vehicle (RV) with unpermitted utilities. The portion of the violation pertaining to the RV with unpermitted utilities was corrected as of April 22, 2021. The other violations remain. The Applicant states that majority of the work occurred prior to their ownership, with the exception of grading in response to failing retaining walls and non-structural work in the existing garage detailed in the Administrative Citation sent March 25, 2021. Title 1 section 1.22.010 defines “responsible person” as any person that has done any act, or maintains or allows to continue a condition, for which an administrative fine or administrative penalty, or the repayment of administrative costs, or other costs may be imposed, or the person's attorney, where appropriate. The transfer of ownership under Title 1 states the new owner becomes the responsible person for the work conducted and is then responsible for abating the violation to bring the property into compliance.
The Property Owner entered into a Stipulated Agreement on February 6, 2024, which was adopted and executed on February 12, 2024 and later filed on April 3, 2024 (Exhibit C). Item No. 7 of the signed Stipulated Agreement indicates “Responsible Party agrees that all permit fees, including double fees, are not waived; only amounts specified as Administrative Fines or Penalties will be waived or reduced.” The Stipulated Agreement states that the County issued administrative penalties fining the Property Owner/Responsible Party $988,600.00 for the violations occurring prior to entering into the agreement. However, this amount was reduced as the County and Property Owner settled on a penalty in the sum of $7,560.00. This fine was required to be paid by February 14, 2024, and was timely paid. Item No. 9 of the Stipulated Agreement states “Responsible Party agrees to apply for the necessary permits from the Housing and Community Development Planning and Building Departments by April 15, 2024 to complete the following…”. Accordingly, the Property Owner applied for PLN240181 on May 13, 2024 and paid the Application Request Checklist fee of $500. Following dispersal of the checklist, staff sent the applicant the estimated planning fees associated with the processing of a Combined Development Permit.
Fee Waiver:
To abate the above violation, the Property Owner must either restore the property to pre-violation conditions, or obtain after-the-fact permitting for such work. Fees to associate with a Restoration Permit would be $3,695.10. Permit fees to process the after-the-fact Combined Development Permit would be $28,604.00. Here, the Applicant elected to seek an after-the-fact Combined Development Permit and subsequently received permit fees for an after-the-fact Combined Development Permit. The Applicant/Owner then submitted a Fee Waiver Request on November 17, 2025, along with supporting documentation, to be reviewed by HCD-Director. The Board of Supervsior’s adopted Land Use Permit Fee Waiver Policy (Board Policy G-260) authorizes the HCD-Director to waive planning and/or construction permit fees that meet any of the following criterion:
1. Small day care centers (less than twelve children).
2. Inclusionary portions of proposed residential developments.
3. Special Handling affordable housing projects, as detailed in the adopted Special Handling criteria (25% affordable housing). Amount of fees waived is based on the percentage of affordable housing provided, and may include additional fees beyond the original application fees.
4. Persons age 62 or over on a fixed, very low income as defined by Housing and Urban Development.
5. Reclassification applications to bring property into consistency with existing General Plan land use designations.
6. Permit fees for the repair or reconstruction of property and structures damaged or destroyed by an act or event that has been declared a disaster by the Board of Supervisors where insurance is inadequate to pay the applicable fees.
7. Development, enhancement, expansion or modification of needed community facilities by non-profit organizations and community groups meeting the following criteria:
a. The proposed project is available for use by the general public; and
b. Provides a scope of benefit beyond the residents of the immediate vicinity; and,
c. Is of obvious public benefit. Evidence of public benefit includes, but not limited to, projects that:
i. Meet a public need previously identified or recognized by the Board of Supervisors;
ii. Provide a public facility not presently available in the community;
iii. Have generated obvious, substantial community support; or,
iv. Would either reduce County costs or increase County revenue.
8. General Plan amendments for parcels with inappropriate or inaccurate land use designations provided the property has been field checked and verified that it is inaccurately or inappropriately designated.
9. Land use appeal fees when the appellant provides evidence that appellant is unable to afford the appeal fees due to appellant’s financial condition, provided that the appellant provides evidence in support of the fee waiver request such as evidence demonstrating that appellant would qualify for a waiver of court fees costs pursuant to California Government Code section 68632 because of his or her financial condition.
The Applicant requested that all planning permit fees ($28,604.00) be waived, citing that they are a person 62 or older on a fixed, very-low income (Criteria No. 4) and that the majority of violations had occurred prior to taking ownership of the land.
Through review of the request and supporting documentation, the HCD-Director determined the household income does not meet the Housing and Urban Development’s definition of “very-low” but does meet the definition to be considered “low”. Pursuant to Title 20 section 20.90.140, an application for permits to authorize any after-the-fact use or construction shall require a fee of twice the amount normally charged for the application. However, given the low-income status of the Applicant/Owner, the HCD-Director agreed to waive the standard double-charge for a Combined Development Permit ($28,604.00), which is permissible under Title 20 section 20.90.140, and charge only charge one after-the-fact Combined Development Permit ($14,523.00). It should be noted that the Land Use Permit Fee Waiver Policy does not provide provisions for waiving fees when violations occurred prior to taking ownership of the land, as violations run with the land, not the property owner. The applicant received the denied fee waiver request on December 15, 2025 (Exhibit B).
The Board’s Land Use Permit Fee Waiver Policy does, however, allow the Planning Commission to consider all requests for fee waivers not meeting the above criteria. Since the Director found that the request did not meet the adopted criteria, the Applicant requested that the request be considered scheduled by the Planning Commission and provided the same argument that was presented to the Chief of Planning. In addition to this information, the Applicant’s representative, Lombardo & Associates, provided additional justification. The Board’s Land Use Permit Fee Waiver Policy allows the HCD-Director to waive land use appeal fees when an appellant is unable to afford the fees due to the appellant's financial condition, provided the appellant demonstrates that they would qualify for a waiver of court fees under California Government Code § 68632, which includes receiving benefits of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or Medi-Cal. According to Mr. Lombardo’s letter (Exhibit D), the Applicant received both SNAP and Medi-Cal benefits, and “therefore, she would qualify for a waiver of Supervisor Court fees, which is also the ground for a waiver of County fees.” This statement is partially true. While the Applicant appears to qualify for waiver of Supervisor Court fees under California Government Code § 68632, this is only the grounds for the HCD-Director to waive land use appeal fees, not permitting fees. Although the Board’s Land Use Permit Fee Waiver Policy requires that “all fees shall be paid at the time of the filing an application or an appeal, [and] [s]hould the fees subsequently be waived, the fees shall be refunded,” the Applicant requested that the County schedule the Fee Waiver Request for consideration by the Planning Commission independently of the processing of the after-the-fact Combined Development Permit (HCD-Planning File No. PLN240181), which is intended to partially abate the violation. PLN240181 is currently in an incomplete project status.
Given the circumstances described above, namely 1) the Property Owner previously agreeing in the Stipulated Agreement not to seek a waiver of permitting fees, and 2) the current project scope involving after-the-fact consideration of work already completed rather than the restoration or removal of unpermitted development, staff recommends that the Planning Commission not waive the permit fees. In addition, as a reminder, the County issued administrative penalties totaling $988,600.00 for the violations. This amount was later reduced through the Stipulated Agreement to $7,560.00, effectively waiving $981,040.00. This reduced penalty is in addition to the HCD Director’s decision that the planning permit should not be subject to double fees due to the Property Owner’s low-income status. At this time, staff believes that appropriate fee-reduction measures have already been applied to allow the Property Owner to proceed with clearing the violation, while still ensuring cost recovery and adherence to County requirements.
CEQA:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378 defines a “project” as any activity undertaken or approved by a public agency that may result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Therefore, the consideration of a Fee Waiver does not meet the criteria to be considered a project under CEQA Guidelines section 15378, and is not subject to CEQA review.
Prepared by: McKenna Bowling, Associate Planner, x5298
Reviewed by: Fionna Jensen, Principal Planner
Approved by: Melanie Beretti, AICP, Chief of Planning
The following attachments are on file with the HCD:
Exhibit A - Discussion
Exhibit B - Denied Fee Waiver Request with justification
Exhibit C - Stipulated Agreement dated February 6, 2024
Exhibit D - Additional Fee Waiver Justification
cc: Front Counter Copy; McKenna Bowling, Planner; Fionna Jensen, Principal Planner; Nancy Forsberg; Property Owner; Anthony Lobardo and Associates, Agent; The Open Monterey Project (Molly Erickson); Lozeau Drury LLP; Christina McGinnis, Keep Big Sur Wild; Landwatch: Planning File PLN240181.